1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to computer networks and more particularly to protecting against border router failure between domains of a computer network using backup tunnels.
2. Background Information
A computer network is a geographically distributed collection of nodes interconnected by communication links and segments for transporting data between end nodes, such as personal computers and workstations. Many types of networks are available, with the types ranging from local area networks (LANs) to wide area networks (WANs). LANs typically connect the nodes over dedicated private communications links located in the same general physical location, such as a building or campus. WANs, on the other hand, typically connect geographically dispersed nodes over long-distance communications links, such as common carrier telephone lines, optical lightpaths, synchronous optical networks (SONET), or synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) links. The Internet is an example of a WAN that connects disparate networks throughout the world, providing global communication between nodes on various networks. The nodes typically communicate over the network by exchanging discrete frames or packets of data according to predefined protocols, such as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). In this context, a protocol consists of a set of rules defining how the nodes interact with each other. Computer networks may be further interconnected by an intermediate network node, such as a router, to extend the effective “size” of each network.
Since management of interconnected computer networks can prove burdensome, smaller groups of computer networks may be maintained as routing domains or autonomous systems. The networks within an autonomous system (AS) are typically coupled together by conventional “intradomain” routers configured to execute intradomain routing protocols, and are generally subject to a common authority. To improve routing scalability, a service provider (e.g., an ISP) may divide an AS into multiple “areas.” It may be desirable, however, to increase the number of nodes capable of exchanging data; in this case, interdomain routers executing interdomain routing protocols are used to interconnect nodes of the various ASes. Moreover, it may be desirable to interconnect various ASes that are operated under different administrative domains. As used herein, an AS or, more particularly, an area is generally referred to as a “domain,” and a router that interconnects different domains together is generally referred to as a “border router.”
An example of an interdomain routing protocol is the Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP), which performs routing between domains (ASes) by exchanging routing and reachability information among neighboring interdomain routers of the systems. An adjacency is a relationship formed between selected neighboring (peer) routers for the purpose of exchanging routing information messages and abstracting the network topology. The routing information exchanged by BGP peer routers typically includes destination address prefixes, i.e., the portions of destination addresses used by the routing protocol to render routing (“next-hop”) decisions. Examples of such destination addresses include IP version 4 (IPv4) and version 6 (IPv6) addresses. BGP generally operates over a reliable transport protocol, such as TCP, to establish a TCP connection/session. The BGP protocol is well known and generally described in Request for Comments (RFC) 1771, entitled A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), published March 1995.
Examples of an intradomain routing protocol, or an interior gateway protocol (IGP), are the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol and the Intermediate-System-to-Intermediate-System (IS-IS) routing protocol. The OSPF and IS-IS protocols are based on link-state technology and, therefore, are commonly referred to as link-state routing protocols. Link-state protocols define the manner with which routing information and network-topology information are exchanged and processed in a domain. This information is generally directed to an intradomain router's local state (e.g., the router's usable interfaces and reachable neighbors or adjacencies). The OSPF protocol is described in RFC 2328, entitled OSPF Version 2, dated April 1998 and the IS-IS protocol used in the context of IP is described in RFC 1195, entitled Use of OSI ISIS for routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments, dated December 1990, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
An intermediate network node often stores its routing information in a routing table maintained and managed by a routing information base (RIB). The routing table is a searchable data structure in which network addresses are mapped to their associated routing information. However, those skilled in the art will understand that the routing table need not be organized as a table, and alternatively may be another type of searchable data structure. Although the intermediate network node's routing table may be configured with a predetermined set of routing information, the node also may dynamically acquire (“learn”) network routing information as it sends and receives data packets. When a packet is received at the intermediate network node, the packet's destination address (e.g., stored in a header of the packet) may be used to identify a routing table entry containing routing information associated with the received packet. Among other things, the packet's routing information indicates the packet's next-hop address.
To ensure that its routing table contains up-to-date routing information, the intermediate network node may cooperate with other intermediate nodes to disseminate routing information representative of the current network topology. For example, suppose the intermediate network node detects that one of its neighboring nodes (i.e., adjacent network nodes) becomes unavailable, e.g., due to a link failure or the neighboring node going “off-line,” etc. In this situation, the intermediate network node can update the routing information stored in its routing table to ensure that data packets are not routed to the unavailable network node. Furthermore, the intermediate node also may communicate this change in network topology to the other intermediate network nodes so they, too, can update their local routing tables and bypass the unavailable node. In this manner, each of the intermediate network nodes becomes “aware” of the change in topology.
Typically, routing information is disseminated among the intermediate network nodes in accordance with a predetermined network communication protocol, such as a link-state protocol (e.g., IS-IS, or OSPF). Conventional link-state protocols use link-state packets (or “IGP Advertisements”) for exchanging routing information between interconnected intermediate network nodes (IGP nodes). As used herein, an IGP Advertisement generally describes any message used by an IGP routing protocol for communicating routing information among interconnected IGP nodes, i.e., routers and switches. Operationally, a first IGP node may generate an IGP Advertisement and “flood” (i.e., transmit) the packet over each of its network interfaces coupled to other IGP nodes. Thereafter, a second IGP node may receive the flooded IGP Advertisement and update its routing table based on routing information contained in the received IGP Advertisement. Next, the second IGP node may flood the received IGP Advertisement over each of its network interfaces, except for the interface at which the IGP Advertisement was received. This flooding process may be repeated until each interconnected IGP node has received the IGP Advertisement and updated its local routing table.
In practice, each IGP node typically generates and disseminates an IGP Advertisement whose routing information includes a list of the intermediate node's neighboring network nodes and one or more “cost” values associated with each neighbor. As used herein, a cost value associated with a neighboring node is an arbitrary metric used to determine the relative ease/burden of communicating with that node. For instance, the cost value may be measured in terms of the number of hops required to reach the neighboring node, the average time for a packet to reach the neighboring node, the amount of network traffic or available bandwidth over a communication link coupled to the neighboring node, etc.
As noted, IGP Advertisements are usually flooded until each intermediate network IGP node has received an IGP Advertisement from each of the other interconnected intermediate nodes. Then, each of the IGP nodes can construct the same “view” of the network topology by aggregating the received lists of neighboring nodes and cost values. To that end, each IGP node may input this received routing information to a “shortest path first” (SPF) calculation that determines the lowest-cost network paths that couple the intermediate node with each of the other network nodes. For example, the Dijkstra algorithm is a conventional technique for performing such a SPF calculation, as described in more detail in Section 12.2.4 of the text book Interconnections Second Edition, by Radia Perlman, published September 1999, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Each IGP node updates the routing information stored in its local routing table based on the results of its SPF calculation. More specifically, the RIB updates the routing table to correlate destination nodes with next-hop interfaces associated with the lowest-cost paths to reach those nodes, as determined by the SPF calculation.
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering has been developed to meet data networking requirements such as guaranteed available bandwidth or fast restoration. MPLS Traffic Engineering exploits modem label switching techniques to build guaranteed bandwidth end-to-end tunnels through an IP/MPLS network of label switched routers (LSRs). These tunnels are a type of label switched path (LSP) and thus are generally referred to as MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs. Examples of MPLS TE can be found in RFC 3209, entitled RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels dated December 2001, RFC 3784 entitled Intermediate-System-to-Intermediate-System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE) dated June 2004, and RFC 3630, entitled Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2 dated September 2003, the contents of all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Establishment of an MPLS TE-LSP from a head-end LSR to a tail-end LSR involves computation of a path through a network of LSRs. Optimally, the computed path is the “shortest” path, as measured in some metric, that satisfies all relevant LSP Traffic Engineering constraints such as e.g., required bandwidth, availability of backup bypass tunnels for each link and node included in the path, etc. Path computation can either be performed by the head-end LSR or by some other entity operating as a path computation element (PCE). The head-end LSR (or a PCE) exploits its knowledge of network topology and resources available on each link to perform the path computation according to the LSP Traffic Engineering constraints. Various path computation methodologies are available including CSPF (constrained shortest path first). MPLS TE-LSPs can be configured within a single domain, e.g., IGP area or level, or may also span multiple domains, e.g., IGP areas or levels.
One difficulty that arises in crossing domain boundaries is that path computation at the head-end LSR requires knowledge of network topology and resources across the entire network between the head-end and the tail-end LSRs. Yet service providers typically do not share this information with each other across domain borders. In particular, network topology and resource information do not generally flow across area boundaries even though a single service provider may operate all the areas. Neither the head-end LSR nor any single PCE will have sufficient knowledge to compute a path. Because of this, MPLS Traffic Engineering path computation techniques are required to compute inter-domain TE-LSPs.
The use of PCEs has been adapted to create a distributed PCE architecture, in order to extend MPLS TE-LSPs across domain boundaries. An example of such a distributed architecture is described in commonly-owned copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/767,574, entitled COMPUTING INTER-AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM MPLS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING LSP PATHS, filed by Vasseur et al., on Sep. 18, 2003, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. In a distributed PCE architecture, the visibility needed to compute paths is extended between adjacent domains so that PCEs may cooperate to compute paths across multiple domains by exchanging virtual shortest path trees (VSPTs) while preserving confidentiality across domains (e.g., when applicable to ASes).
Some applications may incorporate unidirectional data flows configured to transfer time-sensitive traffic from a source (sender) in a computer network to a destination (receiver) in the network in accordance with a certain “quality of service” (QoS). Here, network resources may be reserved for the unidirectional flow to ensure that the QoS associated with the data flow is maintained. The Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) is a network-control protocol that enables applications to reserve resources in order to obtain special QoS for their data flows. RSVP works in conjunction with routing protocols to, e.g., reserve resources for a data flow in a computer network in order to establish a level of QoS required by the data flow. RSVP is defined in R. Braden, et al., Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), RFC 2205. In the case of traffic engineering applications, RSVP signaling is used to establish a TE-LSP and to convey various TE-LSP attributes to routers, such as border routers, along the TE-LSP obeying the set of required constraints whose path may have been computed by various means.
Generally, a tunnel is a logical structure that encapsulates a packet (a header and data) of one protocol inside a data field of another protocol packet with a new header. In this manner, the encapsulated data may be transmitted through networks that it would otherwise not be capable of traversing. More importantly, a tunnel creates a transparent virtual network link between two network nodes that is generally unaffected by physical network links or devices (i.e., the physical network links or devices merely forward the encapsulated packet based on the new header). While one example of a tunnel is an MPLS TE-LSP, other known tunneling methods include, inter alia, the Layer Two Tunnel Protocol (L2TP), the Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP), and IP tunnels.
Reconfiguring a network in response to a network element failure using, e.g., pure IP rerouting, can be time consuming. Many recovery techniques, however, are available to provide fast recovery and/or network configuration in the event of a network element failure, including, inter alia, Fast Reroute (FRR), e.g., IP FRR or MPLS TE FRR. An example of MPLS TE FRR is described in Pan, et al., Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels, Internet Draft, February 2005, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. FRR has been widely deployed to protect against intra-domain network failures, where “backup tunnels” are created to bypass a protected network device (e.g., links, shared risk link groups (SRLGs), and nodes). When the network element fails, traffic is quickly rerouted over a backup tunnel to bypass the failed device (or in the case of MPLS, a set of TE-LSP(s) is/are quickly rerouted). In an interdomain IP/MPLS environment, however, there is a lack of knowledge of routers surrounding an inter-domain border router regarding the forwarding path of inter-domain traffic traversing that border router. Protection of border routers is particularly critical because of the amount of traffic generally traversing them. While solutions are available to create inter-domain backup tunnels (e.g., manually configuring backup tunnels from each router surrounding the border router in one domain to each router surrounding the border router in another), one difficulty is to dynamically select an appropriate backup tunnel for each destination address prefix. Selecting an improper backup tunnel could result in routing loops, black holing, time delay, or other undesirable outcomes.